Is the Sacrament a Saving Ordinance?

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It is also reasonable to believe the prophet and apostles when they say that the sacrament is not a saving ordinance.  

Could you please address this question?

Can we retain a remission of our sins without partaking of the sacrament?

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A person killed immediately after baptism is sinless. If during the interim between baptism and death perchance he should sin and not be able to repent,  I don’t believe a just and merciful God would deny him salvation. Is there any other ordinance that enables us to renew covenants and retain remission of sins? I can’t think of any. To me, that makes it necessary, or in other words, an ordinance of salvation.

For my entire life I was always taught it is not a saving ordinance so I will go with what the church and the prophets have said about it. For a few years at the beginning of the church they were not partaking of the sacrament on a regular basis.

The Lord's Supper in Early Mormonism

[Duncan]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

I don't understand how it is necessary to retain the remission of sins but not necessary for salvation. Could you comment on that?

because people have been retaining a remission of sins long before the sacrament was instituted, ala law of moses. It is necessary to retain the remission of sins BUT the sacrament is the outward ordinance that we are at least repenting or trying to do that-I think it was Elder Stapley and later Elder Andersen who said it was a reminder of all our covenants, whatever they may be.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Explain, please? 2 Nephi 31 makes it plain that baptism is required for salvation.....unless I misunderstand what you are saying.....

 

I'm saying that the prophets and apostles don't agree with you that sacrament is a saving ordinance.  Sorry for the confusion.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Could you please address this question?

Can we retain a remission of our sins without partaking of the sacrament?

Yes, I believe so.  Like Duncan said, people had been retaining a remission of their sins for centuries before the sacrament was instituted.  Currently, we are commanded to partake of the sacrament but that commandment hasn't existed for everyone who has ever lived. 

[JamesBYoung]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

The commandments are salivational but we do not keep them for the dead. Partaking of the sacrament is a commandment administered by an ordinance.

... which does not make it salvational in and by itself.  That is merely your opinion.  The dead are keeping their commandments on their side of the veil.

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I believe so.  Like Duncan said, people had been retaining a remission of their sins for centuries before the sacrament was instituted.  Currently, we are commanded to partake of the sacrament but that commandment hasn't existed for everyone who has ever lived. 

They did so in anticipation of the Atonement.

It has been a commandment ever since the Atonement was completed. How do we retain a remission of our sins today without the sacrament?

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

For my entire life I was always taught it is not a saving ordinance so I will go with what the church and the prophets have said about it.
For a few years at the beginning of the church they were not partaking of the sacrament on a regular basis.

The Lord's Supper in Early Mormonism

If it is necessary to retain a remission of sins, how is it not a saving ordinance?
 

Yet today it has become a temple recommend question. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

... which does not make it salvational in and by itself.  That is merely your opinion.  The dead are keeping their commandments on their side of the veil.

No ordinance saves in and of itself. Elder Bednar made that very observation about the sacrament In the OP. Yet later he said it is one of the three ordinances that are necessary in order to obtain the power of godliness. How is that not a saving ordinance? Perhaps he is referring to exaltation. Is it necessary for exaltation.

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

They did so in anticipation of the Atonement.

It has been a commandment ever since the Atonement was completed. How do we retain a remission of our sins today without the sacrament?

through the Holy Ghost

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

... which does not make it salvational in and by itself.  That is merely your opinion.  The dead are keeping their commandments on their side of the veil.

Semantically speaking, it does make it salvational so opinion has nothing to do with it. But it is merely your opinion that it is not semantic.

The repentant, worthy dead are keeping the commandments and not taking the sacrament. When they are resurrected, they are saved in that sense along with the wicked, without taking it. But if one refuses to partake of it with the others in D&C 27:5-14, he would only be saved to a lesser degree than he otherwise would have should he partake.

Context is important. The sacrament and other ordinances are part of the strait and narrow way after baptism. Skip any of them and you can only progress so far.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

They did so in anticipation of the Atonement.

It has been a commandment ever since the Atonement was completed. How do we retain a remission of our sins today without the sacrament?

Today, we, 1) who have access to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and 2) have covenanted through baptism and confirmation, and 3) have access to the sacrament, retain a remission of our sins by partaking of the sacrament. 

But for others who lived in different dispensations or places, or who have lived since the Atonement but who will die without ever having covenanted through baptism and confirmation, or who have no access to the sacrament, the answer is different. 

King Benjamin taught that this was how one retained a remission of sins in Mosiah 4:

Quote

 

10 And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you; and now, if you believe all these things see that ye do them.

11 And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing steadfastly in the faith of that which is to come, which was spoken by the mouth of the angel.

12 And behold, I say unto you that if ye do this ye shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God, and always retain a remission of your sins; and ye shall grow in the knowledge of the glory of him that created you, or in the knowledge of that which is just and true.

26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

 

As an interesting sidebar, we can ask ourselves, do his words apply to us as well or is worthily partaking of the sacrament sufficient for us to retain a remission?  From my perspective, they apply to us as well, which implies to me that retaining a remission is more than the sacrament alone.

 

 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This seems to be the go-to argument against it being an ordinance of salvation.

I don't know if it's the go-to argument, but it's a pretty easy example which demonstrates that the ordinance isn't always necessary. 

I think the stronger, clearer argument is that there is no temple analogue. In the holy temple we vicariously engage in all of the ordinances necessary for the salvation of our kindred dead, and the sacrament isn't one of those ordinances. Hence, it is not an essential (or saving) ordinance. 

 

Quote

The obvious answer is that a person who is baptized is sinless and would have no need for the ordinance of the sacrament.

Again, if there is no need for the ordinance, then how can it be a requirement for salvation?

 

Quote

IMO, the sacrament is an ordinance for the living....those who make covenants and then want to retain the remission of their sins granted at baptism as they wend their way.

I don't know that the primary purpose of the sacrament is to obtain a remission of sins. If that were the case, there wouldn't be as many prohibitions with respect to not partaking of the sacrament unworthily.

Instead, I believe it is designed more to focus our attention on the sacrifice for sin which was brought about by the Savior and to remind those of us who have been baptized that we need to maintain our lives in harmony with His teachings and commandments.

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Amulek

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

If it is necessary to retain a remission of sins, how is it not a saving ordinance?
 

Yet today it has become a temple recommend question. 

 

Baptism is necessary for remission of sins, the sacrament is not. We use the sacrament it to help us resolve to repent of our sins that happen after baptism. When we repent of our sins our baptism covers them; not the act of taking the sacrament.

"The Savior instituted the sacrament … to help us remember Him and the Atonement He made for all mankind.
The purpose of partaking of the sacrament is, of course, to renew the covenants we have made with the Lord.
When we partake of the sacrament worthily, … we take upon ourselves the name of our Savior and promise to always remember Him and to keep His commandments.
The sacrament is one of the most sacred ordinances in the Church. Partaking of the sacrament worthily gives us an opportunity for spiritual growth."  (Elder L. Tom Perry)

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
"The Sacrament in LDS belief does not serve primarily as a means of securing remission of sins. It does, however, focus attention on the sacrifice for sin wrought by the Savior and on the need for all those who have been baptized to maintain their lives constantly in harmony with his teachings and commandments. "

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't know if it's the go-to argument, but it's a pretty easy example which demonstrates that the ordinance isn't always necessary. 

I think the stronger, clearer argument is that there is no temple analogue. In the holy temple we vicariously engage in all of the ordinances necessary for the salvation of our kindred dead, and the sacrament isn't one of those ordinances. Hence, it is not an essential (or saving) ordinance. 

 

Again, if there is no need for the ordinance, then how can it be a requirement for salvation?

 

I don't know that the primary purpose of the sacrament is to obtain a remission of sins. If that were the case, there would be as many prohibitions with respect to not partaking of the sacrament unworthily.

Instead, I believe it is designed more to focus our attention on the sacrifice for sin which was brought about by the Savior and to remind those of us who have been baptized that we need to maintain our lives in harmony with His teachings and commandments.

 

It's been the go-to in this discussion. IMO, it does not demonstrate that the ordinance isn't always necessary because it is such an extremely rare occurrence. Anecdotally, I have never heard of it happening. That's not to say it hasn't, but it certainly is not something that should affect the argument. A merciful and just God would not penalize such a person. I don't think that citing such an extreme circumstance is a good way to establish doctrine.

There would be no need for the ordinance for that singular individual who was baptized and then died immediately before sinning. For the rest of us, we are commanded to do it to retain a remission of our sins after baptism. That would be everyone who has ever been baptized except for that exceedingly rare occurrence.

I will draw your attention again to Elder Bednar's statement:
 

Quote

The sacrament is the third ordinance necessary to obtain access to the power of godliness. That we might more fully keep ourselves unspotted from the world, we are commanded to go to the house of prayer and offer up our sacraments upon the Lord’s holy day. Please consider that the emblems of the Lord’s body and blood, the bread and the water, are both blessed and sanctified. “O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread [or this water] to the souls of all those who partake [or drink] of it.” To sanctify is to make pure and holy. The sacramental emblems are sanctified in remembrance of Christ’s purity, of our total dependence upon His Atonement, and of our responsibility to so honor our ordinances and covenants that we can “stand spotless before [Him] at the last day.”

The ordinance of the sacrament is a holy and repeated invitation to repent sincerely and to be renewed spiritually. The act of partaking of the sacrament, in and of itself, does not remit sins. But as we prepare conscientiously and participate in this holy ordinance with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then the promise is that we may always have the Spirit of the Lord to be with us. And by the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost as our constant companion, we can always retain a remission of our sins.

We truly are blessed each week by the opportunity to evaluate our lives through the ordinance of the sacrament, to renew our covenants, and to receive this covenant promise.

The ordinances of baptism by immersion, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the sacrament are not isolated and discrete events; rather, they are elements in an interrelated and additive pattern of redemptive progress. Each successive ordinance elevates and enlarges our spiritual purpose, desire, and performance. The Father’s plan, the Savior’s Atonement, and the ordinances of the gospel provide the grace we need to press forward and progress line upon line and precept upon precept toward our eternal destiny.

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Baptism is necessary for remission of sins, the sacrament is not. We use the sacrament it to help us resolve to repent of our sins that happen after baptism. When we repent of our sins our baptism covers them; not the act of taking the sacrament.

"The Savior instituted the sacrament … to help us remember Him and the Atonement He made for all mankind.
The purpose of partaking of the sacrament is, of course, to renew the covenants we have made with the Lord.
When we partake of the sacrament worthily, … we take upon ourselves the name of our Savior and promise to always remember Him and to keep His commandments.
The sacrament is one of the most sacred ordinances in the Church. Partaking of the sacrament worthily gives us an opportunity for spiritual growth."  (Elder L. Tom Perry)

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
"The Sacrament in LDS belief does not serve primarily as a means of securing remission of sins. It does, however, focus attention on the sacrifice for sin wrought by the Savior and on the need for all those who have been baptized to maintain their lives constantly in harmony with his teachings and commandments. "

No one is saying it is the primary means of securing remission of sins. No ordinance can save in and of itself. 

This seems to contradict Elder Bednar's statement that it is necessary. He said it is the ordinance that helps us retain the remission of sins. 

Do I understand you are saying the sacrament is optional?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Today, we, 1) who have access to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and 2) have covenanted through baptism and confirmation, and 3) have access to the sacrament, retain a remission of our sins by partaking of the sacrament. 

But for others who lived in different dispensations or places, or who have lived since the Atonement but who will die without ever having covenanted through baptism and confirmation, or who have no access to the sacrament, the answer is different. 

King Benjamin taught that this was how one retained a remission of sins in Mosiah 4:

As an interesting sidebar, we can ask ourselves, do his words apply to us as well or is worthily partaking of the sacrament sufficient for us to retain a remission?  From my perspective, they apply to us as well, which implies to me that retaining a remission is more than the sacrament alone.

 

 

I have not said that remission of sins is only through the sacrament. Of course there are other things involved.

Elder Bednar said it is a necessary ordinance to retain remission of sins. It sounds like you may think it is optional. Do I understand correctly?

We are accountable for what is the current law. There was no sacrament before the Atonement. There was after the Atonement, and it was instituted as a commandment to observed by all who are baptized since then.

For example, we no longer practice circumcision or animal sacrifices as signs of the covenant.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[JamesBYoung]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Semantically speaking, it does make it salvational so opinion has nothing to do with it. But it is merely your opinion that it is not semantic.

The repentant, worthy dead are keeping the commandments and not taking the sacrament. When they are resurrected, they are saved in that sense along with the wicked, without taking it. But if one refuses to partake of it with the others in D&C 27:5-14, he would only be saved to a lesser degree than he otherwise would have should he partake.

Context is important. The sacrament and other ordinances are part of the strait and narrow way after baptism. Skip any of them and you can only progress so far.

No, your opinion is not decision worthy, CV75.  An ordinance is an act signifying one is covenanting to do the Lord's Will.  One, we have no instruction from the Brethren on this; and common sense understanding of scripture instructs the worthy dead are taking their form of sacrament (communion) in their realm.  We will have to agree to disagree.

Edited May 26, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

common sense understanding of scripture instructs the worthy dead are taking their form of sacrament (communion) in their realm. 

Which scripture is this?  I'm not aware of any teaching in the scriptures or by the brethren which indicates that the dead participate in any gospel ordinance, prior to the resurrection,  except by proxy.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have not said that remission of sins is only through the sacrament. Of course there are other things involved.

Elder Bednar said it is a necessary ordinance to retain remission of sins. It sounds like you may think it is optional. Do I understand correctly?

We are accountable for what is the current law. There was no sacrament before the Atonement. There was after the Atonement, and it was instituted as a commandment to observed by all who are baptized since then.

For example, we no longer practice circumcision or animal sacrifices as signs of the covenant.

None of that chances the fact that someone does not have to have partaken of the sacrament to be saved.

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

None of that chances the fact that someone does not have to have partaken of the sacrament to be saved.

I guess we'll have to disagree that it is a fact. That has not been established. That is contradicted by the statement that it is necessary.

Do you believe it has anything to do with retaining a remission of sins? Do I understand correctly that you believe it is optional?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

through the Holy Ghost

But we can't always have the Spirit with us unless we partake of the sacrament and renew the covenant.

[JAHS]

57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No one is saying it is the primary means of securing remission of sins. No ordinance can save in and of itself. 

This seems to contradict Elder Bednar's statement that it is necessary. He said it is the ordinance that helps us retain the remission of sins. 

Do I understand you are saying the sacrament is optional?

Right it "helps" us retain remission of sins but it is not the vehicle that provides it; baptism is and Jesus is.  It's optional if for some reason it is not available to a member. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then it must be unnecessary, which would contradict Elder Bednar.

It is a commandment that we partake of it. We are not accountable for obedience to a commandment we are prevented from keeping by outside forces.

Things can be necessary in the sense that certain forms of progression will only happen if we do them, but not necessary in that we have to do them immediately. Also there are things necessary if we want to be fully engaged in righteousness, but God allows us to progress over time developing spiritually rather than off/on a Saint imo. 
 

For the first, think of it like a college course of physics. It isn’t necessary to live a happy, successful life, but it is necessary if one wants to be a physicist. And for the second, one deciding to become a physicist, you don’t immediately qualified fully even after being accepted into the program. It takes time and effort developing the knowledge and skills needed. 
 

I think Baptism is acceptance into the program, imo. The sacrament is one of the essential courses provided with the intent to develop useful to other courses skills and perspectives of thinking and by taking it multiple times worthily and with intent to learn and experience it (rather than just because we are told to), our skills and knowledge of the Gospel develop more consistently. However, not taking it doesn’t get us kicked out of the program, it just makes some other courses more difficult. 
 

From my own experience, one of the biggest blessings of the Sacrament is the concrete tie it encourages between me and my community of Saints. It makes it easier to see myself as a part of that community, that I need to be there for myself and others. It fills a hole that I don’t always pay enough attention to and adds motivation to push myself to be more proactively a Saint as opposed to just someone learning about the Gospel. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Could you please address this question?

Can we retain a remission of our sins without partaking of the sacrament?

Of course we can. We must, or we would all be lost.

I would wager that every person who has ever taken the sacrament and then died, sinned between the sacrament and death. Maybe they were just little sins. Doesn't matter. There must be forgiveness after death because we sin prior to death and the sacrament isn't given to us post-death vicariously.